What's the Matter with What's the Matter with Kansas
September 29, 2005 3:54 PM Subscribe
What's the Matter with What's the Matter with Kansas (pdf) Has the white working class abandoned the Democratic Party? No. . . . Has the white working class become more conservative? No. . . . Do working class “moral values” trump economics? No. . . . Are religious voters distracted from economic issues? No. An analysis by Larry Bartels, a professor at Princeton of "What's the Matter with Kansas" (previously discussed here). Lots of good survey data about this issue.
Excellent point, Rothko...
posted by clevershark at 4:40 PM on September 29, 2005
posted by clevershark at 4:40 PM on September 29, 2005
It doesn't matter what the Republicans do, as long as they've got the media machine working well for them. And it does, so well that they can pretty much make any statement and it will be disseminated with such minimal fact-checking and followup by the media that the average Joe or Jane has the lie stuck in their mind as the truth.
The comic above is a bad illustration (ha ha) of the problem...the people don't know that Bloomberg does the things that the characters are saying because the media has utterly failed at telling them these things.
You want to change the current political climate? Start with the media. Ignore the meat (political fights) some of the time and work on making absolutely clear the message (the truth). It would absolutely be the quickest way to get the corruption and lies dealt with.
posted by Kickstart70 at 4:41 PM on September 29, 2005
The comic above is a bad illustration (ha ha) of the problem...the people don't know that Bloomberg does the things that the characters are saying because the media has utterly failed at telling them these things.
You want to change the current political climate? Start with the media. Ignore the meat (political fights) some of the time and work on making absolutely clear the message (the truth). It would absolutely be the quickest way to get the corruption and lies dealt with.
posted by Kickstart70 at 4:41 PM on September 29, 2005
Good comic, Alex.
posted by klangklangston at 4:44 PM on September 29, 2005
posted by klangklangston at 4:44 PM on September 29, 2005
Not sure that's a fair point, actually, Rothko. The farmer was screwed by his rep; New Yorker's haven't exactly been screwed by Bloomberg. He actually has done a pretty good job, and unfortunately, at this point democratic leadership must begin with the leaders, not the voters. I'll never mindlessly vote the party line; I vote for good leaders.
That said, if someone wants to bring me up to speed on all the evil Bloomberg's done (and I don't think bringing the republican convention to nyc quite counts -- that's just part of a mayor's job: wooing revenue), I'm all ears.
posted by Hobbacocka at 4:54 PM on September 29, 2005
That said, if someone wants to bring me up to speed on all the evil Bloomberg's done (and I don't think bringing the republican convention to nyc quite counts -- that's just part of a mayor's job: wooing revenue), I'm all ears.
posted by Hobbacocka at 4:54 PM on September 29, 2005
I can tell you in one word why Kansas isn't going for Democrats anymore: Labor. It used to be that the Democratic party supported domestic labor, and the unions. That support gave many middle Americans their livelyhood. The Democrats started being doomed when they stopped supporting organized labor and domestic products instead of globalization. If both the Republicans and the Democrats ship jobs overseas, why should blue-collar workers feel any loyalty to either party? All the factories are closing and moving overseas, and the Democrats helped the Republicans do it.
posted by unreason at 5:01 PM on September 29, 2005
posted by unreason at 5:01 PM on September 29, 2005
I'd really like to see Frank's response to this, he's not a professional idiot, sorry I meant pundit. I bet he'd engage meaningfully.
posted by raaka at 5:05 PM on September 29, 2005
posted by raaka at 5:05 PM on September 29, 2005
Hobbacocka, the cartoonist Ward Sutton is really aiming his ire at New Yorkers who mouth their beliefs without actually acting upon them — hypocrites, if you will — and don't quite get or care about the larger consequences of voting Republican.
Anyway, one serious and obvious complaint about Bloomberg is his inability to obtain funding from DHS to protect his city despite his party affiliation, especially ironic given NYC received the greatest damage in money and lives from the 9/11 attacks.
In any case, Bloomberg bought the mayorship, just as he bought his name on buildings from his alma mater Johns Hopkins University. On an odd afternoon he'd land his helicopter right on the quad field and pop in to visit the deans. NYC is just another Baltimore trophy to him, another notch on the wall. He has no firm belief system beyond whatever it takes to make a profit from his financial information systems products, so as to feed his ego.
posted by Rothko at 5:07 PM on September 29, 2005
Anyway, one serious and obvious complaint about Bloomberg is his inability to obtain funding from DHS to protect his city despite his party affiliation, especially ironic given NYC received the greatest damage in money and lives from the 9/11 attacks.
In any case, Bloomberg bought the mayorship, just as he bought his name on buildings from his alma mater Johns Hopkins University. On an odd afternoon he'd land his helicopter right on the quad field and pop in to visit the deans. NYC is just another Baltimore trophy to him, another notch on the wall. He has no firm belief system beyond whatever it takes to make a profit from his financial information systems products, so as to feed his ego.
posted by Rothko at 5:07 PM on September 29, 2005
Hobbacocka
Very good point, if both parties undermine their constituents, why support them?
posted by mk1gti at 5:15 PM on September 29, 2005
Very good point, if both parties undermine their constituents, why support them?
posted by mk1gti at 5:15 PM on September 29, 2005
... don't quite get or care about the larger consequences of voting Republican.
In the case of the mayor of NYC, what exactly are those consequences? If he's donating and raising money for Bush, wouldn't he continue to do so if he weren't mayor?
NYC is just another Baltimore trophy to him, another notch on the wall. He has no firm belief system beyond whatever it takes to make a profit from his financial information systems products, so as to feed his ego.
So what? Is he doing a good job? If he is, who cares why he wants to be mayor?
posted by me & my monkey at 5:25 PM on September 29, 2005
In the case of the mayor of NYC, what exactly are those consequences? If he's donating and raising money for Bush, wouldn't he continue to do so if he weren't mayor?
NYC is just another Baltimore trophy to him, another notch on the wall. He has no firm belief system beyond whatever it takes to make a profit from his financial information systems products, so as to feed his ego.
So what? Is he doing a good job? If he is, who cares why he wants to be mayor?
posted by me & my monkey at 5:25 PM on September 29, 2005
In the case of the mayor of NYC, what exactly are those consequences? If he's donating and raising money for Bush, wouldn't he continue to do so if he weren't mayor?
I mentioned one (security funding) that affects NYers directly and substantially. Secondly, his job is to run the city, not use the city to donate and raise funds for the GOP.
posted by Rothko at 5:34 PM on September 29, 2005
I mentioned one (security funding) that affects NYers directly and substantially. Secondly, his job is to run the city, not use the city to donate and raise funds for the GOP.
posted by Rothko at 5:34 PM on September 29, 2005
I take Bartels to mean that things are not as bad as Frank suggested for liberals. The base is not fleeing based upon moral issues. I heard Bartels on the radio tonight on the way home, hence the link, and he sees the major shift as losing the unnatural democratic advantage in the South. That advantage was, in his words but I agree, largely a result of the historical legacy of the Civil War. What I do not see as much of in the paper is the force of party identity, although he did discuss this a bit on the radio. The Democrats enjoyed their advantage in the South in some important measure due to party identity. The Democrats were the party of resistance against Lincoln's Republicans. There was also a natural affinity to the working poor as most of the South was quite poor after the war. Once Kennedy and Johnson pushed the civil rights legislation upon a reluctant South that erased the party identity with the Democrats. Poor whites still identified with the economic issues, but now no more so than poor whites in the rest of the country
Given the affinity that the base feels on economic issues and given the sympathy for that among many liberal upper class voters who go against their interests, I think Howard Dean is exactly right. So was Clinton, "It's the economy stupid." However, it is the economy as to how it affects the average guy. The Republicans love to talk the economy, but their view is that of the upper middle income voter. They only care about the average people to the extent that of the money those people plows back into the economy. They don't really care about the people themselves.
That is where I think a paradox lies in the current political situation. We have a dicey economy right now at the low end, but an OK economy for those at the upper end. Everyone worries about their jobs. Jobs are fickle, but those at the middle to upper end feel that they could find another one if they have to. I am not sure those at the lower end feel that way. Also, housing prices have propped things up and made people feel richer than they perhaps really are, at least those people lucky enough to own homes. They have used that increase to refinance and get money for things they want.
Unreason makes a good point about the support for labor. However, labor, as in union labor, has diminished greatly over the years, further eroding Democratic power. I see a new future for unions in organizing workers in the new service economy, but it is tough given the global competition for such jobs. If you work in a video game sweat shop (remember when sweat shops used to make clothing?) are you really going to organize and go on strike when management can just outsource your job to India? Not all service workers have viable organizing options. Long term, as the third world countries grow their economies and their workers can demand more this issue will diminish, but that is a long way off. The service workers that the Democratic party could help now are the Walmart employees and the like. Their jobs are harder to outsource.
The Democrats need to focus on being a populist party. Fair treatment for the common man, yet within the ideals of a capitalist society where every person can have the dream, unlikely as it may be, of striking it rich and moving up to wealth. The current Republicans pay lip service to these themes and the Democrats need to call them on it, push things with popular appeal and put the “no” votes by the Republicans before the public in coming elections.
This can be combined with the current disgust with the party in power. Greed, corruption, and incompetence are damaging the Republicans right now. The Democrats need to focus on staying clean, focus on doing the right thing for the people who need it most, not on corporate favors.
Give the people what they want, what they need, what is fair, what is right, and show how the other side fails in this mission and Democrats can retake power. The country is divided, nearly evenly so. A few things can tip the balance either way.
posted by caddis at 5:35 PM on September 29, 2005
Given the affinity that the base feels on economic issues and given the sympathy for that among many liberal upper class voters who go against their interests, I think Howard Dean is exactly right. So was Clinton, "It's the economy stupid." However, it is the economy as to how it affects the average guy. The Republicans love to talk the economy, but their view is that of the upper middle income voter. They only care about the average people to the extent that of the money those people plows back into the economy. They don't really care about the people themselves.
That is where I think a paradox lies in the current political situation. We have a dicey economy right now at the low end, but an OK economy for those at the upper end. Everyone worries about their jobs. Jobs are fickle, but those at the middle to upper end feel that they could find another one if they have to. I am not sure those at the lower end feel that way. Also, housing prices have propped things up and made people feel richer than they perhaps really are, at least those people lucky enough to own homes. They have used that increase to refinance and get money for things they want.
Unreason makes a good point about the support for labor. However, labor, as in union labor, has diminished greatly over the years, further eroding Democratic power. I see a new future for unions in organizing workers in the new service economy, but it is tough given the global competition for such jobs. If you work in a video game sweat shop (remember when sweat shops used to make clothing?) are you really going to organize and go on strike when management can just outsource your job to India? Not all service workers have viable organizing options. Long term, as the third world countries grow their economies and their workers can demand more this issue will diminish, but that is a long way off. The service workers that the Democratic party could help now are the Walmart employees and the like. Their jobs are harder to outsource.
The Democrats need to focus on being a populist party. Fair treatment for the common man, yet within the ideals of a capitalist society where every person can have the dream, unlikely as it may be, of striking it rich and moving up to wealth. The current Republicans pay lip service to these themes and the Democrats need to call them on it, push things with popular appeal and put the “no” votes by the Republicans before the public in coming elections.
This can be combined with the current disgust with the party in power. Greed, corruption, and incompetence are damaging the Republicans right now. The Democrats need to focus on staying clean, focus on doing the right thing for the people who need it most, not on corporate favors.
Give the people what they want, what they need, what is fair, what is right, and show how the other side fails in this mission and Democrats can retake power. The country is divided, nearly evenly so. A few things can tip the balance either way.
posted by caddis at 5:35 PM on September 29, 2005
I mentioned one (security funding) that affects NYers directly and substantially. Secondly, his job is to run the city, not use the city to donate and raise funds for the GOP.
The security funding's a good point. However, I think the complaint about fund raising's a bit much. I seriously doubt that any politician, whatever his or her party, is going to pass up a fundraising opportunity. You can be certain that Hillary Clinton will be doing fundraising in New York when it gets closer to primary time.
posted by unreason at 5:38 PM on September 29, 2005
The security funding's a good point. However, I think the complaint about fund raising's a bit much. I seriously doubt that any politician, whatever his or her party, is going to pass up a fundraising opportunity. You can be certain that Hillary Clinton will be doing fundraising in New York when it gets closer to primary time.
posted by unreason at 5:38 PM on September 29, 2005
The current Republicans pay lip service to these themes and the Democrats need to call them on it, push things with popular appeal and put the “no” votes by the Republicans before the public in coming elections.
And who then, exactly, will provide the millions of dollars that are needed to get Democrats elected? I'm not being facetious here: crafting the faux-populism that seems to be required in order to win elections under the current system... well, it doesn't come cheap.
posted by holgate at 6:25 PM on September 29, 2005
And who then, exactly, will provide the millions of dollars that are needed to get Democrats elected? I'm not being facetious here: crafting the faux-populism that seems to be required in order to win elections under the current system... well, it doesn't come cheap.
posted by holgate at 6:25 PM on September 29, 2005
That attitude holgate has gotten them where they are today - out of power. Further, it isn't faux populism that gets votes, it's real populism. If it isn't in your heart, go home and let someone who really has the public's interests at heart take the job.
posted by caddis at 6:29 PM on September 29, 2005
posted by caddis at 6:29 PM on September 29, 2005
I mentioned one (security funding) that affects NYers directly and substantially.
Do you honestly think a Democratic mayor would have done better on that score? If so, why?
Secondly, his job is to run the city, not use the city to donate and raise funds for the GOP.
What politicians don't raise funds for their parties? How has he "used" the city any more than any other elected official does?
posted by me & my monkey at 7:15 PM on September 29, 2005
Do you honestly think a Democratic mayor would have done better on that score? If so, why?
Secondly, his job is to run the city, not use the city to donate and raise funds for the GOP.
What politicians don't raise funds for their parties? How has he "used" the city any more than any other elected official does?
posted by me & my monkey at 7:15 PM on September 29, 2005
Do you honestly think a Democratic mayor would have done better on that score? If so, why?
posted by me & my monkey at 10:15 PM EST on September 29 [!]
That's not what you were asking before. Bloomberg wasn't elected yesterday and didn't suddenly change party affiliations in mid-term. Why can't Bloomberg use his party affiliation to do his job (namely to secure his city) when he spends as much time as he does to raise funds for that same party? (And why has your question changed?)
posted by Rothko at 7:24 PM on September 29, 2005
posted by me & my monkey at 10:15 PM EST on September 29 [!]
That's not what you were asking before. Bloomberg wasn't elected yesterday and didn't suddenly change party affiliations in mid-term. Why can't Bloomberg use his party affiliation to do his job (namely to secure his city) when he spends as much time as he does to raise funds for that same party? (And why has your question changed?)
posted by Rothko at 7:24 PM on September 29, 2005
I can tell you in one word why Kansas isn't going for Democrats anymore:
When did Kansas EVER go for Democrats (for president)? Not since 1964. And before that, not since 1936.
posted by deanc at 7:42 PM on September 29, 2005
When did Kansas EVER go for Democrats (for president)? Not since 1964. And before that, not since 1936.
posted by deanc at 7:42 PM on September 29, 2005
Who cares about NYC? It's the country that is at stake. New Yorkers vote for mayors with strength. The rest of the field is just a bunch of pussies compared to Bloomberg. Anyway, things in New York do not really change based upon the mayor's political affiliation. Regardless, he switched parties to become mayor and has a history of funding Democrats. New York is its own world, completely removed from the politics of the rest of the country.
The more pressing issue is how to get more Democrats into offices with real power, Federal offices.
NYC is fucking derail. In the DeLay thread all anyone could discuss were dios's points about grand juries and gay Republicans who vote against their interest. If liberals can't focus on the things that matter, the people who can, like Tom DeLay, are going to whip their asses every time. It is depressing.
deanc is right. That is just what the paper said. Stop worrying about all this pandering to Bobo's crap and focus on the prize. Either that or just give it to DeLay and then lay down and die. Get a spine and focus.
posted by caddis at 7:47 PM on September 29, 2005
The more pressing issue is how to get more Democrats into offices with real power, Federal offices.
NYC is fucking derail. In the DeLay thread all anyone could discuss were dios's points about grand juries and gay Republicans who vote against their interest. If liberals can't focus on the things that matter, the people who can, like Tom DeLay, are going to whip their asses every time. It is depressing.
deanc is right. That is just what the paper said. Stop worrying about all this pandering to Bobo's crap and focus on the prize. Either that or just give it to DeLay and then lay down and die. Get a spine and focus.
posted by caddis at 7:47 PM on September 29, 2005
Further, Judith Miller is out of jail and ready to testify. What changed?
posted by caddis at 7:56 PM on September 29, 2005
posted by caddis at 7:56 PM on September 29, 2005
The Kansans who actually vote ARE voting for their economic interests!!!
Thomas Frank lived in 1 extremely wealthy county in Kansas (Johnson County.) He didn’t really portray the other 104 counties very well.
The middle to upper-middle class farmers who have managed to stay in the business ARE served very well by their republicans in Congress who protect their crop subsidies/handouts. This had made farming into a no-risk operation that encourages overproduction and the depletion of the water table at an alarming rate.
Without crop subsidies, the Kansas economy would suffer immensely. As it stands now, it is very well subsidized by them. Same for Medicare and Medicaid spending. Which the GOP Congress did very well to protect last year.
Kansas has a well performing education system (despite the embarrassments handed to it by the state board of ed.) The people who are not served well by it (the poor in K.C., Topeka, and Wichita) don’t vote.
What IS wrong with Kansas is its unfair influence in the U.S. Senate. Why should Kansas get the same amount as NY, TX and CA?
THAT is what is wrong with the U.S.
posted by tommunation at 7:57 PM on September 29, 2005
Thomas Frank lived in 1 extremely wealthy county in Kansas (Johnson County.) He didn’t really portray the other 104 counties very well.
The middle to upper-middle class farmers who have managed to stay in the business ARE served very well by their republicans in Congress who protect their crop subsidies/handouts. This had made farming into a no-risk operation that encourages overproduction and the depletion of the water table at an alarming rate.
Without crop subsidies, the Kansas economy would suffer immensely. As it stands now, it is very well subsidized by them. Same for Medicare and Medicaid spending. Which the GOP Congress did very well to protect last year.
Kansas has a well performing education system (despite the embarrassments handed to it by the state board of ed.) The people who are not served well by it (the poor in K.C., Topeka, and Wichita) don’t vote.
What IS wrong with Kansas is its unfair influence in the U.S. Senate. Why should Kansas get the same amount as NY, TX and CA?
THAT is what is wrong with the U.S.
posted by tommunation at 7:57 PM on September 29, 2005
That said, caddis, I think NYers should oppose Bloomberg anyway. The west side stadium attempted boondoggle comes to mind as the first reason.
posted by deanc at 8:01 PM on September 29, 2005
posted by deanc at 8:01 PM on September 29, 2005
Bloomberg is going to win with 80 percent of the vote. Why waste your valuable resources on this crap?
Focus on what will make a difference.
Good Lord, perhaps the liberals really are as lame, doomed and forgettable as depicted.
posted by caddis at 8:13 PM on September 29, 2005
Focus on what will make a difference.
Good Lord, perhaps the liberals really are as lame, doomed and forgettable as depicted.
posted by caddis at 8:13 PM on September 29, 2005
Gee, I wonder who will win "American Idol" this year?
posted by caddis at 8:17 PM on September 29, 2005
posted by caddis at 8:17 PM on September 29, 2005
That's not what you were asking before. Bloomberg wasn't elected yesterday and didn't suddenly change party affiliations in mid-term. Why can't Bloomberg use his party affiliation to do his job (namely to secure his city) when he spends as much time as he does to raise funds for that same party? (And why has your question changed?)
I asked if Bloomberg was doing a good job. You said that he failed to secure enough DHS funding. The logical implication of your response is that someone else could have secured more funding. I then asked you if this was the case. So, I suppose that's why my question "changed." (And why are you so obtuse?)
posted by me & my monkey at 8:30 PM on September 29, 2005
I asked if Bloomberg was doing a good job. You said that he failed to secure enough DHS funding. The logical implication of your response is that someone else could have secured more funding. I then asked you if this was the case. So, I suppose that's why my question "changed." (And why are you so obtuse?)
posted by me & my monkey at 8:30 PM on September 29, 2005
I'm not being obtuse. I answered your question, and you seemed to imply I didn't. Specifically, you asked:
In the case of the mayor of NYC, what exactly are those consequences?
And I offered one example (DHS funding). I don't know what the Democratic party or anyone else has to do with your original question as listed above. Feel free to clarify your question above.
posted by Rothko at 9:03 PM on September 29, 2005
In the case of the mayor of NYC, what exactly are those consequences?
And I offered one example (DHS funding). I don't know what the Democratic party or anyone else has to do with your original question as listed above. Feel free to clarify your question above.
posted by Rothko at 9:03 PM on September 29, 2005
Actually, my recent comments are entirely off-topic, so feel free to use email if you'd like to continue.
posted by Rothko at 9:06 PM on September 29, 2005
posted by Rothko at 9:06 PM on September 29, 2005
Rothko, your user page still says you're in Philadelphia. How long have you been living in New York?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:29 PM on September 29, 2005
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:29 PM on September 29, 2005
q. why do midwesterners dislike east coasters?
a. because when you ask them what's the matter with kansas, they start talking about the mayor of new york
great job showing the midwesterners that you're interested in their problems, guys ... and you wonder why we say you don't understand us ...
posted by pyramid termite at 9:53 PM on September 29, 2005
a. because when you ask them what's the matter with kansas, they start talking about the mayor of new york
great job showing the midwesterners that you're interested in their problems, guys ... and you wonder why we say you don't understand us ...
posted by pyramid termite at 9:53 PM on September 29, 2005
I'm not being obtuse.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
And I offered one example (DHS funding). I don't know what the Democratic party or anyone else has to do with your original question as listed above. Feel free to clarify your question above.
OK, here you go.
You said "the cartoonist Ward Sutton is really aiming his ire at New Yorkers who mouth their beliefs without actually acting upon them — hypocrites, if you will — and don't quite get or care about the larger consequences of voting Republican."
I then asked "In the case of the mayor of NYC, what exactly are those consequences?"
You answered by saying that Bloomberg didn't secure adequate DHS funding.
Now, for that answer to make any sense, his failure to secure said funding must be a result of being a Republican - the "larger consequences of voting Republican" that you specifically mentioned.
posted by me & my monkey at 10:10 PM on September 29, 2005
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
And I offered one example (DHS funding). I don't know what the Democratic party or anyone else has to do with your original question as listed above. Feel free to clarify your question above.
OK, here you go.
You said "the cartoonist Ward Sutton is really aiming his ire at New Yorkers who mouth their beliefs without actually acting upon them — hypocrites, if you will — and don't quite get or care about the larger consequences of voting Republican."
I then asked "In the case of the mayor of NYC, what exactly are those consequences?"
You answered by saying that Bloomberg didn't secure adequate DHS funding.
Now, for that answer to make any sense, his failure to secure said funding must be a result of being a Republican - the "larger consequences of voting Republican" that you specifically mentioned.
posted by me & my monkey at 10:10 PM on September 29, 2005
caddis, the "American Dream" was bullshit 3000 years before "America" was a word. Very very few poor people ever get rich -- hell, very very few poor people ever stop being poor -- regardless of how smart, plucky, or deserving they are. That's the way it's always been under every economic system that contains rich people.
I can think of three reasons why it works that way off the top of my head, but I'd like to see other people explain it -- I'd like to see if it really is as easy to figure out as I think.
posted by davy at 10:25 PM on September 29, 2005
I can think of three reasons why it works that way off the top of my head, but I'd like to see other people explain it -- I'd like to see if it really is as easy to figure out as I think.
posted by davy at 10:25 PM on September 29, 2005
Very very few poor people ever get rich -- hell, very very few poor people ever stop being poor -- regardless of how smart, plucky, or deserving they are. That's the way it's always been under every economic system that contains rich people.
Hasn't it also always been that way under every economic system that didn't contain rich people?
posted by me & my monkey at 10:29 PM on September 29, 2005
Hasn't it also always been that way under every economic system that didn't contain rich people?
posted by me & my monkey at 10:29 PM on September 29, 2005
The current incarnation of GOP is demonstrably incompetent in handling domestic security issues. Voting for a GOP mayor apparently won't make NYC any safer, since DHS money isn't even being handed out to a party member/fundraiser. That's a consequence of voting for the GOP as it exists today. Where I am being obtuse and where does my explanation require the Democratic party?
posted by Rothko at 10:30 PM on September 29, 2005
posted by Rothko at 10:30 PM on September 29, 2005
Armitage, I don't live in NYC but I have friends there.
posted by Rothko at 10:45 PM on September 29, 2005
posted by Rothko at 10:45 PM on September 29, 2005
The current incarnation of GOP is demonstrably incompetent in handling domestic security issues. Voting for a GOP mayor apparently won't make NYC any safer, since DHS money isn't even being handed out to a party member/fundraiser. That's a consequence of voting for the GOP as it exists today. Where I am being obtuse and where does my explanation require the Democratic party?
I think you're confusing parties with candidates. People vote for candidates, not for parties. Voting for Bloomberg doesn't affect domestic security issues one way or the other. Voting for Bloomberg doesn't require you to vote for Bush, or for any other Republican candidate. In fact, I suspect that most people who voted for Bloomberg didn't vote for Bush. Bloomberg's being in office doesn't strengthen the GOP in any meaningful sense. Again, I don't see that things would be any different, at either the national level or with regard to DHS money spent in NYC, if people had elected a Democratic mayor instead. As for why your explanation requires the Democratic party, we do have a two-party system, so if you vote for someone who's not a Republican, there's a pretty good chance you voted for a Democrat.
As for where you're being obtuse, I could go on and on, but most browsers limit text entry to around sixty-five thousand characters or so, if I recall correctly.
posted by me & my monkey at 11:25 PM on September 29, 2005
I think you're confusing parties with candidates. People vote for candidates, not for parties. Voting for Bloomberg doesn't affect domestic security issues one way or the other. Voting for Bloomberg doesn't require you to vote for Bush, or for any other Republican candidate. In fact, I suspect that most people who voted for Bloomberg didn't vote for Bush. Bloomberg's being in office doesn't strengthen the GOP in any meaningful sense. Again, I don't see that things would be any different, at either the national level or with regard to DHS money spent in NYC, if people had elected a Democratic mayor instead. As for why your explanation requires the Democratic party, we do have a two-party system, so if you vote for someone who's not a Republican, there's a pretty good chance you voted for a Democrat.
As for where you're being obtuse, I could go on and on, but most browsers limit text entry to around sixty-five thousand characters or so, if I recall correctly.
posted by me & my monkey at 11:25 PM on September 29, 2005
Clearly, the Democratic party needs to rethink its position on slavery.
Anyway -- I've long subscribed to the performance theory of politics, viz. the Thirteen Keys system in particular. This model eschews the idea of "structural" political coalitions -- though I'm not so sure it entirely disproves the influence of the Solid South. Under this view, there's nothing the "matter" with Kansas that a good kick in the pants wouldn't fix -- i.e. a failure in governance by the Republican party, by which I do not mean simply doing things that Democrats don't like, but things that are net badnesses for the country. A failed foreign policy venture -- in terms that the country accepts, not just the left -- is one tick. A failed economy -- in hard GDP terms -- is another. In this model, Bush is perhaps writing the same political obituary that LBJ did. In this model, Carter's moral qualities as a man matter much less than his failure to keep the economy afloat and our diplomats out of harm's way. In this model, one thing that is hard to accept is that Reagan did a pretty good job of running the country -- the economy hummed, the foreign policy embarassments were minor, the scandals were at arm's length from the oval office.
Certainly we know that the country is evenly divided, and we know that we're all more purple than red or blue. Part of the power of "red" states has come simply from population growth -- and it's likely that much of that growth has been in the more mobile classes, which as shown are more predisposed to be Republican. This has intensified the divide over time; red people are moving to red states, leaving blue people behind in bluer states. But it hasn't really affected the overall party numbers, just where and how effective those party numbers translate into votes.
An argument I've also posited (without data...) is the concept that this migration also means that red regions have to worry in the long run. They can't exist without lower classes. The "red" suburbs around Chicago are turning purple as minorities and lower-income workers move out of the city. At best, it may only reflect certain temporary geographic advantages, coupled with effective campaigning, savvy redistricting, and careful (or lucky?) management of the key policy levers.
posted by dhartung at 11:27 PM on September 29, 2005
Anyway -- I've long subscribed to the performance theory of politics, viz. the Thirteen Keys system in particular. This model eschews the idea of "structural" political coalitions -- though I'm not so sure it entirely disproves the influence of the Solid South. Under this view, there's nothing the "matter" with Kansas that a good kick in the pants wouldn't fix -- i.e. a failure in governance by the Republican party, by which I do not mean simply doing things that Democrats don't like, but things that are net badnesses for the country. A failed foreign policy venture -- in terms that the country accepts, not just the left -- is one tick. A failed economy -- in hard GDP terms -- is another. In this model, Bush is perhaps writing the same political obituary that LBJ did. In this model, Carter's moral qualities as a man matter much less than his failure to keep the economy afloat and our diplomats out of harm's way. In this model, one thing that is hard to accept is that Reagan did a pretty good job of running the country -- the economy hummed, the foreign policy embarassments were minor, the scandals were at arm's length from the oval office.
Certainly we know that the country is evenly divided, and we know that we're all more purple than red or blue. Part of the power of "red" states has come simply from population growth -- and it's likely that much of that growth has been in the more mobile classes, which as shown are more predisposed to be Republican. This has intensified the divide over time; red people are moving to red states, leaving blue people behind in bluer states. But it hasn't really affected the overall party numbers, just where and how effective those party numbers translate into votes.
An argument I've also posited (without data...) is the concept that this migration also means that red regions have to worry in the long run. They can't exist without lower classes. The "red" suburbs around Chicago are turning purple as minorities and lower-income workers move out of the city. At best, it may only reflect certain temporary geographic advantages, coupled with effective campaigning, savvy redistricting, and careful (or lucky?) management of the key policy levers.
posted by dhartung at 11:27 PM on September 29, 2005
I think you're confusing parties with candidates. People vote for candidates, not for parties.
By and large, people vote along party lines. They don't have to, but for the most part, they want to.
Anyway, your comment is irrelevant to the non-obtuse answer to your question.
As for where you're being obtuse, I could go on and on, but most browsers limit text entry to around sixty-five thousand characters or so, if I recall correctly.
posted by me & my monkey at 2:25 AM EST on September 30 [!]
As for how you've been repeatedly obnoxious in trying to bait me somehow, I suppose I could go on and on. If you have some personal issues take them outside, thanks.
posted by Rothko at 8:06 AM on September 30, 2005
By and large, people vote along party lines. They don't have to, but for the most part, they want to.
Anyway, your comment is irrelevant to the non-obtuse answer to your question.
As for where you're being obtuse, I could go on and on, but most browsers limit text entry to around sixty-five thousand characters or so, if I recall correctly.
posted by me & my monkey at 2:25 AM EST on September 30 [!]
As for how you've been repeatedly obnoxious in trying to bait me somehow, I suppose I could go on and on. If you have some personal issues take them outside, thanks.
posted by Rothko at 8:06 AM on September 30, 2005
So... what is the problem with Kansas then?
The same thing that's wrong with every other place. You have a bunch of people that think they know what's best for the rest of the people. Or you have a bunch of people that are willing to do whatever it takes to shield their "special" children from potentially corruptive input.
posted by deusdiabolus at 8:28 AM on September 30, 2005
The same thing that's wrong with every other place. You have a bunch of people that think they know what's best for the rest of the people. Or you have a bunch of people that are willing to do whatever it takes to shield their "special" children from potentially corruptive input.
posted by deusdiabolus at 8:28 AM on September 30, 2005
Dhartung, as you probably know the minority exodus from Chicago was boosted by Daley's restructuring of public housing that has left many homeless and therefore with no choice but to leave. The burbs, in response, have expanded considerably. The amount of new homes in areas like Plainfield is huge. Big new homes are popping up in the far corners of Plano and and large tracts of land are being primed for development as some citizens try and fight the sprawl (sprawlway.org).
Some of the very small towns out here have a surprising number of multi-millionares as residents.
posted by john at 11:35 AM on September 30, 2005
Some of the very small towns out here have a surprising number of multi-millionares as residents.
posted by john at 11:35 AM on September 30, 2005
Actually the Republicans have only served the interests of the Farm economy, not the small farmer little guy. The plains states have some of the highest poverty rates in the country, the teaches are paid so poorly that most have a hard time paying student loans, and can never afford to retire. Coporate farming has become more and more popular, the big businesses who drove prices down so much that most small farmers are going out of buisness. The price of wheat now is less than it was in the 1970's yet expenses like oh say, fuel have gone through the roof. If the Democrats ever want to have a prayer at winning the votes of the rual poor, or even the lower classes, they need some sort of major project like the New Deal.
It isn't simply enough to say we're not bush, or were not as corrupt. It's about ideas and having a plan. Bush may have had a somewhat evil, shitty plan, but he did offer some sort of plan (tax cuts, etc.). The message may have been bad for most people, but he got it out there.
Kansas actually has 2 types of Republicans, the religious nuts and the moderate fiscal conservative types. The key to getting things done isn't getting the zealots, but getting the moderates on board.
posted by Numenorian at 12:26 PM on September 30, 2005
It isn't simply enough to say we're not bush, or were not as corrupt. It's about ideas and having a plan. Bush may have had a somewhat evil, shitty plan, but he did offer some sort of plan (tax cuts, etc.). The message may have been bad for most people, but he got it out there.
Kansas actually has 2 types of Republicans, the religious nuts and the moderate fiscal conservative types. The key to getting things done isn't getting the zealots, but getting the moderates on board.
posted by Numenorian at 12:26 PM on September 30, 2005
Hasn't it also always been that way under every economic system that didn't contain rich people?
Well, without rich people, the poor people won't know they're poor. QED.
posted by darukaru at 12:45 PM on September 30, 2005
Well, without rich people, the poor people won't know they're poor. QED.
posted by darukaru at 12:45 PM on September 30, 2005
Love the Ward Sutton strip, as always. I'm disgusted by the number of alleged left-libs who've told me they're backing Bloomberg. I tend to just say something like "You realise you're what's wrong with the American electorate, don't you?" They tend not to get why I would say that. I tend not to bother explaining.
posted by Decani at 12:48 PM on September 30, 2005
posted by Decani at 12:48 PM on September 30, 2005
They tend not to get why I would say that. I tend not to bother explaining.
That attitude is why the Democrats don't win national elections. Somebody asked why Midwesterners didn't like people from the coasts, its because they tend to talk and act like arrogant pricks who are convinced they are smarter and therefore entitled to power. Kinda like when Kerry tried explaining how much better he is than Bush at understanding nuances. That is very likely true, but to those of us born and raised in the Midwest, pretentiousness is not a particularly fine quality to posess.
posted by wabashbdw at 1:25 PM on September 30, 2005
That attitude is why the Democrats don't win national elections. Somebody asked why Midwesterners didn't like people from the coasts, its because they tend to talk and act like arrogant pricks who are convinced they are smarter and therefore entitled to power. Kinda like when Kerry tried explaining how much better he is than Bush at understanding nuances. That is very likely true, but to those of us born and raised in the Midwest, pretentiousness is not a particularly fine quality to posess.
posted by wabashbdw at 1:25 PM on September 30, 2005
to those of us born and raised in the Midwest, pretentiousness is not a particularly fine quality to posess.
WTF?
Then why is East coast-educated Little Lord Fauntleroy president? Because he bought an entire ranch right before his presidential run?
Bush is the biggest faker since FDR pretended he could walk.
I'm from the midwest, and I've hated Bush's pretentious phoney-down-home-airs since day one. Am I alone?
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:35 PM on September 30, 2005
WTF?
Then why is East coast-educated Little Lord Fauntleroy president? Because he bought an entire ranch right before his presidential run?
Bush is the biggest faker since FDR pretended he could walk.
I'm from the midwest, and I've hated Bush's pretentious phoney-down-home-airs since day one. Am I alone?
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:35 PM on September 30, 2005
I'm from the midwest, and I've hated Bush's pretentious phoney-down-home-airs since day one. Am I alone?
No, you're not alone. Both Bush and Kerry were fakers. The difference is that Bush was better at getting away with it. Also, the Dems have an unpleasant habit of assuming that you have no choice but to vote for them. You can see it in this thread. You can't vote for Bloomburg, because he's not a Democrat, regardless of his policies. The Dems will start winning elections when they recognize that people aren't obligated to vote for a Democrat simply because he's not Republican.
posted by unreason at 1:40 PM on September 30, 2005
No, you're not alone. Both Bush and Kerry were fakers. The difference is that Bush was better at getting away with it. Also, the Dems have an unpleasant habit of assuming that you have no choice but to vote for them. You can see it in this thread. You can't vote for Bloomburg, because he's not a Democrat, regardless of his policies. The Dems will start winning elections when they recognize that people aren't obligated to vote for a Democrat simply because he's not Republican.
posted by unreason at 1:40 PM on September 30, 2005
I'm agree with tommunation, Johnson County is just a wealthy, white (91%) suburb of Kansas City. No surprise when KCMO experience their white flight (which was rather late and only happened when they put the projects in prosperous neighborhoods right when the crack epidemic happened and the education system in KC is laughable at best), Johnson County grew in size tremendously and is now 1/8th the population of Kansas. Johnson County is no different than a suburb of any other city except for the fact it is rather homogeneous in culture, jobs and race.
Thomas Frank also lived in Mission Hills, which rivals the wealthiest portions of any major area, think 1920s mansions, with maid quarters and separate carriage houses for the cooks. These aren't just cookie cutter homes but F Scott Fitzgerald-like homes of the 20s. Mission Hills is even more white than the rest of Johnson County and even more exclusive, there are something like 5 country clubs in Mission Hills and I don't think any of them allowed Jews or blacks until very recently (the KC Country Club still does not to my knowledge).
Johnson County also boasts one of the best school systems in the nation, even if there are backwater people in Topeka making stupid evolution decisions. As ammunation states, they are betting in their best economic interests. Take a look at how Republicans help the airline industry and look at the airline capital of Witchita. We also have some major oil refineries and oil wells in Kansas along with the crop subsidies previously mentioned.
There are really no urban areas (along with the urban poor) anywhere in Kansas. I more than realize there is KCK, Wichita and Topeka but they are relatively small. There exists no real push for many liberal policies that help the poor and destitute. Yes they are there, but they are neither visible or plentiful.
If the Republican policies work anywhere it's in Kansas. I hate to admit it and I don't like Republicans and their policies as much as the next Metafilter user, but Republican ways of thinking do work here. The terrible Democratic management of Kansas City and really all of Missouri (home of Truman possibly one of our most liberal presidents) have soured a lot of those who fled to Kansas. We have good healthcare, good education and low crime and poverty rates. Is this a result of simply being Republicans? No, but here the smaller government, less taxes approach works at least visibily better than anywhere else. I have doubts that the impoverished exist in Kansas as much as anywhere else but traveling through, as I have many times, most of Kansas appears to be doing very well.
I should note that this same conformity, culture and everything else makes me want to leave like a bat out of hell.
posted by geoff. at 2:37 PM on September 30, 2005
Thomas Frank also lived in Mission Hills, which rivals the wealthiest portions of any major area, think 1920s mansions, with maid quarters and separate carriage houses for the cooks. These aren't just cookie cutter homes but F Scott Fitzgerald-like homes of the 20s. Mission Hills is even more white than the rest of Johnson County and even more exclusive, there are something like 5 country clubs in Mission Hills and I don't think any of them allowed Jews or blacks until very recently (the KC Country Club still does not to my knowledge).
Johnson County also boasts one of the best school systems in the nation, even if there are backwater people in Topeka making stupid evolution decisions. As ammunation states, they are betting in their best economic interests. Take a look at how Republicans help the airline industry and look at the airline capital of Witchita. We also have some major oil refineries and oil wells in Kansas along with the crop subsidies previously mentioned.
There are really no urban areas (along with the urban poor) anywhere in Kansas. I more than realize there is KCK, Wichita and Topeka but they are relatively small. There exists no real push for many liberal policies that help the poor and destitute. Yes they are there, but they are neither visible or plentiful.
If the Republican policies work anywhere it's in Kansas. I hate to admit it and I don't like Republicans and their policies as much as the next Metafilter user, but Republican ways of thinking do work here. The terrible Democratic management of Kansas City and really all of Missouri (home of Truman possibly one of our most liberal presidents) have soured a lot of those who fled to Kansas. We have good healthcare, good education and low crime and poverty rates. Is this a result of simply being Republicans? No, but here the smaller government, less taxes approach works at least visibily better than anywhere else. I have doubts that the impoverished exist in Kansas as much as anywhere else but traveling through, as I have many times, most of Kansas appears to be doing very well.
I should note that this same conformity, culture and everything else makes me want to leave like a bat out of hell.
posted by geoff. at 2:37 PM on September 30, 2005
This thread is probably dead, but I'm tired of Bill Mahrer ripping on Kansas. It's really annoying when the "liberal elite" (eww I'm using the phrase) start telling us what we're like how we're all backwards hicks. There are probably just as many backwards hicks (I believe in NYC they're from Long Island and/or Jersey) everywhere else. At least people from Kansas aren't arrogant about everything.
posted by geoff. at 3:47 PM on September 30, 2005
posted by geoff. at 3:47 PM on September 30, 2005
Bill is a libertarian more than a liberal.
I agree about Kansas. Stupidity doesn't respect state or national borders.
posted by john at 5:22 PM on September 30, 2005
I agree about Kansas. Stupidity doesn't respect state or national borders.
posted by john at 5:22 PM on September 30, 2005
By and large, people vote along party lines. They don't have to, but for the most part, they want to.
And yet, in Bloomberg's case, they aren't doing so. So, again, how does voting for Bloomberg benefit the Republican party generally?
As for how you've been repeatedly obnoxious in trying to bait me somehow, I suppose I could go on and on. If you have some personal issues take them outside, thanks.
I'm sorry, I don't know you well enough to have any personal issues with you. I'm not trying to bait you at all, although I will admit my last comment expressed a bit more frustration that it should have. I don't see one comment as being "repeatedly obnoxious," though.
Let me try another tack. It seems to me that you're saying that voting for Bloomberg is inherently bad because he's a Republican, that his failure to secure adequate DHS funding is less acceptable because he's a Republican, and that voting for Bloomberg means that you'll vote for other Republicans. I get that you don't like Republicans, but none of these seems to be accurate, and when I question their accuracy you say something along the lines of "why did you change your question" or state that you've already answered that question, when (in my opinion) you haven't. That strikes me as willfully obtuse.
I'm disgusted by the number of alleged left-libs who've told me they're backing Bloomberg. I tend to just say something like "You realise you're what's wrong with the American electorate, don't you?" They tend not to get why I would say that. I tend not to bother explaining.
Why not? I, for one, would appreciate a cogent explanation. I don't see why support for Bloomberg automatically translates into support for the Republican party generally. I just don't see it. I think that if you could convince me or them, your time would be well spent, wouldn't it?
posted by me & my monkey at 6:02 PM on September 30, 2005
And yet, in Bloomberg's case, they aren't doing so. So, again, how does voting for Bloomberg benefit the Republican party generally?
As for how you've been repeatedly obnoxious in trying to bait me somehow, I suppose I could go on and on. If you have some personal issues take them outside, thanks.
I'm sorry, I don't know you well enough to have any personal issues with you. I'm not trying to bait you at all, although I will admit my last comment expressed a bit more frustration that it should have. I don't see one comment as being "repeatedly obnoxious," though.
Let me try another tack. It seems to me that you're saying that voting for Bloomberg is inherently bad because he's a Republican, that his failure to secure adequate DHS funding is less acceptable because he's a Republican, and that voting for Bloomberg means that you'll vote for other Republicans. I get that you don't like Republicans, but none of these seems to be accurate, and when I question their accuracy you say something along the lines of "why did you change your question" or state that you've already answered that question, when (in my opinion) you haven't. That strikes me as willfully obtuse.
I'm disgusted by the number of alleged left-libs who've told me they're backing Bloomberg. I tend to just say something like "You realise you're what's wrong with the American electorate, don't you?" They tend not to get why I would say that. I tend not to bother explaining.
Why not? I, for one, would appreciate a cogent explanation. I don't see why support for Bloomberg automatically translates into support for the Republican party generally. I just don't see it. I think that if you could convince me or them, your time would be well spent, wouldn't it?
posted by me & my monkey at 6:02 PM on September 30, 2005
I don't see why support for Bloomberg automatically translates into support for the Republican party
Not to butt in (and probably a day late, at that), but let me take a crack at this. I think I can kind of see, at least on a visceral level, what's bothering Rothko so much.
Over the last few decades, the Republican party has transformed itself into one of the most ruthlessly efficient and terrifyingly anti-democratic political machines American democracy has ever seen, rivaling the Communist Party in both the sheer scale of its political influence and in terms of the lock-step unity of its constituency. Viewed from the perspective of a beleaguered believer in the egalitarian, pluralist ideals of early American democracy, the dominance of the Republican Party seems to represent one of the most frighteningly anti-democratic trends in American history.
The contemporary Rebublican Party is monolithic: It operates more like the mafia than like a political party, monomaniacally pursuing political gain at all costs. In my line of work (I've worked as a consultant for a variety of state governmental entities), I've been in a position to catch glimpses of how this machinery operates, and it's scary: It's like some nightmarish vending machine made of self-deluded people, that dispenses candy (in the form of political favors--e.g., government contracts, lucrative consulting gigs, real estate opportunities, etc.) in return for financial contributions from wealthy benefactors.
Please understand, as much as you might hope I'm exaggerating, I'm not: It really is bad. Many who see it happening don't make a fuss about it because they expect to be able to cash in themselves one day, if they play their cards right (it's a sucker's bet in most cases, but that's how all con-games work, right?). But the pay-for-play, victory-at-all-costs political anti-idealogy of the Republican Party runs exactly counter to how many of us feel a democracy should work.
So Bloomberg may only be guilty by association--although it's a good bet he's not squeaky-clean either--but in some cases, guilt by association is enough.
(Now don't even get me started on the Democrats... My only hope is that, now that the Republicans have completely razed the old Democratic establishment, a new crop of good Democratic leaders--good men--will spring up to rebuild the party. No matter what anyone says to the contrary, I think Dean actually cares, and that's a hell of an improvement over the previous status quo. Of course, viable third, fourth and fifth parties would be an even bigger improvement, but we've gotta get someone from either the tweedle-dee or the tweedle-dum party to push the right reforms through before we'll ever see that.)
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 8:30 PM on September 30, 2005
Not to butt in (and probably a day late, at that), but let me take a crack at this. I think I can kind of see, at least on a visceral level, what's bothering Rothko so much.
Over the last few decades, the Republican party has transformed itself into one of the most ruthlessly efficient and terrifyingly anti-democratic political machines American democracy has ever seen, rivaling the Communist Party in both the sheer scale of its political influence and in terms of the lock-step unity of its constituency. Viewed from the perspective of a beleaguered believer in the egalitarian, pluralist ideals of early American democracy, the dominance of the Republican Party seems to represent one of the most frighteningly anti-democratic trends in American history.
The contemporary Rebublican Party is monolithic: It operates more like the mafia than like a political party, monomaniacally pursuing political gain at all costs. In my line of work (I've worked as a consultant for a variety of state governmental entities), I've been in a position to catch glimpses of how this machinery operates, and it's scary: It's like some nightmarish vending machine made of self-deluded people, that dispenses candy (in the form of political favors--e.g., government contracts, lucrative consulting gigs, real estate opportunities, etc.) in return for financial contributions from wealthy benefactors.
Please understand, as much as you might hope I'm exaggerating, I'm not: It really is bad. Many who see it happening don't make a fuss about it because they expect to be able to cash in themselves one day, if they play their cards right (it's a sucker's bet in most cases, but that's how all con-games work, right?). But the pay-for-play, victory-at-all-costs political anti-idealogy of the Republican Party runs exactly counter to how many of us feel a democracy should work.
So Bloomberg may only be guilty by association--although it's a good bet he's not squeaky-clean either--but in some cases, guilt by association is enough.
(Now don't even get me started on the Democrats... My only hope is that, now that the Republicans have completely razed the old Democratic establishment, a new crop of good Democratic leaders--good men--will spring up to rebuild the party. No matter what anyone says to the contrary, I think Dean actually cares, and that's a hell of an improvement over the previous status quo. Of course, viable third, fourth and fifth parties would be an even bigger improvement, but we've gotta get someone from either the tweedle-dee or the tweedle-dum party to push the right reforms through before we'll ever see that.)
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 8:30 PM on September 30, 2005
oops. boy is my face red. of course I meant to say "--good men and women--"... (please don't hurt me too much.)
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 8:33 PM on September 30, 2005
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 8:33 PM on September 30, 2005
Whoa! All-seeing eye dog, that is the best comment I have seen in months! I think you are right in that the obediance factor really scares a lot of people about the GOP right now, even some of its own members.
posted by caddis at 8:44 PM on September 30, 2005
posted by caddis at 8:44 PM on September 30, 2005
Thanks for the praise, caddis. I've had a vague sense lately that the situation is improving, too, and it heartens me to hear someone else say it.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 9:04 PM on September 30, 2005
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 9:04 PM on September 30, 2005
"I don't see why support for Bloomberg automatically translates into support for the Republican party"
Nobody seems to have mentioned that if he's raising funds for the Republican party in the richest city in America, that translates to support in a straightforward manner.
He's helping to fill the war chest in one of the most lucrative places to do so. Is that enough for you?
posted by zoogleplex at 11:36 PM on September 30, 2005
Nobody seems to have mentioned that if he's raising funds for the Republican party in the richest city in America, that translates to support in a straightforward manner.
He's helping to fill the war chest in one of the most lucrative places to do so. Is that enough for you?
posted by zoogleplex at 11:36 PM on September 30, 2005
Seeingeyedog, I came of political age in Chicago, and the Demo political machine there and then fit your description of the GOP machine here and now, to a T. I mean word for word, precisely. Patronage jobs.... everything.
As long as you're seeing, consider this: Political machines are corrupt for reasons having NOTHING to do with their party names. Power corrupts, like the guy said. Period. The problem isn't ultimately the corruption; that's the symptom, the pimples. The disease is the power. Gov't was never supposed to have as much power as it now does, it shouldn't have it, and as long as it does, it will follow as the night follows the day that people/ companies/ lobbyists etc. will try to get that power to work in their interest.
If government is running the show in your industry, via subsidies/tariffs/ quotas/ tax breaks/ allotments/ etc., or has the power to help or hurt you, you'd be irresponsible NOT to line up at the trough. Probably subject to suit, justifiably, by your stockholders. So you hold your nose and pay the lobbyists.
After a series of disastrous, counterproductive campaign finance "reforms," I'm waiting for someone to perceive the obvious: Take away the politicians' vast sweeping powers in areas where it's not properly theirs anyway (which is most of it), and the corruption will evaporate. Nobody will buy influence if the influence isn't there for sale. Better yet, we'll all be free from the oppressive power of politicians in every corner of our lives; the corruption is only a sideshow.
There's no reason, historically, logically, or otherwise, to expect either the tweedledeemocrats or the tweedledumublicans to relinquish the power they enjoy. Not gonna happen. I suggest recognizing and supporting the political philosophy that holds this obvious truth as a central tenet. It's called "libertarian." (Small "l" for the philosophy; the eponymous party--capital "L"--is separate and only incidentally relevant if at all.) And support libertarian principles wherever they appear. We don't "wait" for the tweedles to improbably open the gates; we storm them.
Caddis, caddis, hoo boy: The notion that salvation lies in replacing powerful, corrupt Republicans with powerful, corrupt Democrats is profound. Profoundly hilarious. Almost as funny as your insightful prescription that "Democrats need to be more populist." Promise me you'll keep 'em coming! And don't cloud your crystalline vision with tedious, mundane facts--say, by reading any history, OK? I hope I'm safe in my hunch that you won't be tempted down that dreary path.
posted by clicktosubmit at 2:16 AM on October 1, 2005
As long as you're seeing, consider this: Political machines are corrupt for reasons having NOTHING to do with their party names. Power corrupts, like the guy said. Period. The problem isn't ultimately the corruption; that's the symptom, the pimples. The disease is the power. Gov't was never supposed to have as much power as it now does, it shouldn't have it, and as long as it does, it will follow as the night follows the day that people/ companies/ lobbyists etc. will try to get that power to work in their interest.
If government is running the show in your industry, via subsidies/tariffs/ quotas/ tax breaks/ allotments/ etc., or has the power to help or hurt you, you'd be irresponsible NOT to line up at the trough. Probably subject to suit, justifiably, by your stockholders. So you hold your nose and pay the lobbyists.
After a series of disastrous, counterproductive campaign finance "reforms," I'm waiting for someone to perceive the obvious: Take away the politicians' vast sweeping powers in areas where it's not properly theirs anyway (which is most of it), and the corruption will evaporate. Nobody will buy influence if the influence isn't there for sale. Better yet, we'll all be free from the oppressive power of politicians in every corner of our lives; the corruption is only a sideshow.
There's no reason, historically, logically, or otherwise, to expect either the tweedledeemocrats or the tweedledumublicans to relinquish the power they enjoy. Not gonna happen. I suggest recognizing and supporting the political philosophy that holds this obvious truth as a central tenet. It's called "libertarian." (Small "l" for the philosophy; the eponymous party--capital "L"--is separate and only incidentally relevant if at all.) And support libertarian principles wherever they appear. We don't "wait" for the tweedles to improbably open the gates; we storm them.
Caddis, caddis, hoo boy: The notion that salvation lies in replacing powerful, corrupt Republicans with powerful, corrupt Democrats is profound. Profoundly hilarious. Almost as funny as your insightful prescription that "Democrats need to be more populist." Promise me you'll keep 'em coming! And don't cloud your crystalline vision with tedious, mundane facts--say, by reading any history, OK? I hope I'm safe in my hunch that you won't be tempted down that dreary path.
posted by clicktosubmit at 2:16 AM on October 1, 2005
Dog, I gotta ask: Just what are those "right reforms" for which you apparently intend to wait politely for the dem/rep duopoly to dispense, that will make things easier for "third and fourth parties?" What will they look like? Nothing like the "reforms" thus far, which have done the opposite--entrenched the incumbents and the system further each time. And what makes you so cheerfully assume that they will yield any of their power? Could I borrow your rosy glasses for a day or two?
Dhartung, WHY is it "hard to accept is that Reagan did a pretty good job of running the country" given that "the economy hummed, the foreign policy embarassments were minor...?" You left out ending the cold war, virtually ending inflation, and a few other little things, but even your modest, stingy, grudging assessment looks better than "pretty good," especially by (ahem) the standards of any other modern president I can think of. You?
caddis again, not picking on you, really, but you don't buy a house with "luck" but with money. The same money you pay rent with, but more intelligently employed. Lord knows homeowners get every imaginable tax break--to the point where the poor (renters) are subsidizing the well-to-do (owners). It's not right, but it's not hard.
posted by clicktosubmit at 2:43 AM on October 1, 2005
Dhartung, WHY is it "hard to accept is that Reagan did a pretty good job of running the country" given that "the economy hummed, the foreign policy embarassments were minor...?" You left out ending the cold war, virtually ending inflation, and a few other little things, but even your modest, stingy, grudging assessment looks better than "pretty good," especially by (ahem) the standards of any other modern president I can think of. You?
caddis again, not picking on you, really, but you don't buy a house with "luck" but with money. The same money you pay rent with, but more intelligently employed. Lord knows homeowners get every imaginable tax break--to the point where the poor (renters) are subsidizing the well-to-do (owners). It's not right, but it's not hard.
posted by clicktosubmit at 2:43 AM on October 1, 2005
Over the last few decades, the Republican party has transformed itself into one of the most ruthlessly efficient and terrifyingly anti-democratic political machines American democracy has ever seen, rivaling the Communist Party in both the sheer scale of its political influence and in terms of the lock-step unity of its constituency...
Everything you just said could be applied to the Democrats when they controlled the Congress, except for the "rivalling the Communist Party" part, which is just absurd. To rival the Communist Party, the Republicans would have to outlaw other parties, for starters.
Nobody seems to have mentioned that if he's raising funds for the Republican party in the richest city in America, that translates to support in a straightforward manner.
He's helping to fill the war chest in one of the most lucrative places to do so. Is that enough for you?
Wouldn't he be able to do that even if he wasn't mayor?
posted by me & my monkey at 9:20 AM on October 1, 2005
Everything you just said could be applied to the Democrats when they controlled the Congress, except for the "rivalling the Communist Party" part, which is just absurd. To rival the Communist Party, the Republicans would have to outlaw other parties, for starters.
Nobody seems to have mentioned that if he's raising funds for the Republican party in the richest city in America, that translates to support in a straightforward manner.
He's helping to fill the war chest in one of the most lucrative places to do so. Is that enough for you?
Wouldn't he be able to do that even if he wasn't mayor?
posted by me & my monkey at 9:20 AM on October 1, 2005
"...you'd be irresponsible NOT to line up at the trough. Probably subject to suit, justifiably, by your stockholders. So you hold your nose and pay the lobbyists."
Nice relativistic interpretation of professional ethics there, clicktosubmit. You're right: Down is up, when you stand on your head.
Just what are those "right reforms" for which you apparently intend to wait politely for the dem/rep duopoly to dispense
I'm not saying I expect them either. I'm just saying, short of the more drastic measures everyone here would like to avoid, the only real hope is that one of the parties throws us a bone and pushes through some election reforms with teeth. This is really a topic for another forum, so let's not go too far into this discussion now, but here are a few things I might offer to get the ball rolling (none of these are completely new proposals by any means). First: Take the private money out of the election process completely. Let campaigns be publicly funded. If private citizens want to support a candidate, let them volunteer with the campaign. And cut corporate patronage out of the process completely. Second: Invest heavily in improving the electoral process. We need well-funded, designated voting facilities in every precinct, with uniform election rules from state to state and reliable voting machines that leave clean audit trails. Federal elections should be held to uniform federal standards of accountability. Third: Let's incorporate automatic run-offs into our election process. That way, a vote for a third party candidate will never be "just another wasted vote." Also, all credible parties (that is, parties meeting a certain threshold of popular support) should be given equal time in political debates and other public forums. Fourth (and this is probably the most sweeping and long-term of the changes I'd suggest): Move to a system of proportional representation in the legislature. This last measure in particular has the potential to greatly diminish the power of any one party or politician, going a long way toward discouraging the institutionalized abuses of authority that tend to characterize the modern political landscape.
Obviously, none of these reforms would be easy to get through, nor would they magically transform the more cynical aspects of human nature. But they've worked elsewhere. And since we all agree the problem of corruption in American politics is systemic, why keep changing the lightbulb when the wiring's the problem?
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 9:30 AM on October 1, 2005
Nice relativistic interpretation of professional ethics there, clicktosubmit. You're right: Down is up, when you stand on your head.
Just what are those "right reforms" for which you apparently intend to wait politely for the dem/rep duopoly to dispense
I'm not saying I expect them either. I'm just saying, short of the more drastic measures everyone here would like to avoid, the only real hope is that one of the parties throws us a bone and pushes through some election reforms with teeth. This is really a topic for another forum, so let's not go too far into this discussion now, but here are a few things I might offer to get the ball rolling (none of these are completely new proposals by any means). First: Take the private money out of the election process completely. Let campaigns be publicly funded. If private citizens want to support a candidate, let them volunteer with the campaign. And cut corporate patronage out of the process completely. Second: Invest heavily in improving the electoral process. We need well-funded, designated voting facilities in every precinct, with uniform election rules from state to state and reliable voting machines that leave clean audit trails. Federal elections should be held to uniform federal standards of accountability. Third: Let's incorporate automatic run-offs into our election process. That way, a vote for a third party candidate will never be "just another wasted vote." Also, all credible parties (that is, parties meeting a certain threshold of popular support) should be given equal time in political debates and other public forums. Fourth (and this is probably the most sweeping and long-term of the changes I'd suggest): Move to a system of proportional representation in the legislature. This last measure in particular has the potential to greatly diminish the power of any one party or politician, going a long way toward discouraging the institutionalized abuses of authority that tend to characterize the modern political landscape.
Obviously, none of these reforms would be easy to get through, nor would they magically transform the more cynical aspects of human nature. But they've worked elsewhere. And since we all agree the problem of corruption in American politics is systemic, why keep changing the lightbulb when the wiring's the problem?
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 9:30 AM on October 1, 2005
Everything you just said could be applied to the Democrats when they controlled the Congress, except for the "rivalling the Communist Party" part, which is just absurd.
I work with a guy from China, in the US on a work visa, and we've talked extensively about this. The Communist Party has not outlawed other parties (there are actually many other small political parties in China and they've always been tolerated; they just aren't allowed to get any traction because the communists are so dominant--sound familiar?)
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 9:34 AM on October 1, 2005
I work with a guy from China, in the US on a work visa, and we've talked extensively about this. The Communist Party has not outlawed other parties (there are actually many other small political parties in China and they've always been tolerated; they just aren't allowed to get any traction because the communists are so dominant--sound familiar?)
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 9:34 AM on October 1, 2005
"By and large, people vote along party lines. They don't have to, but for the most part, they want to."
And yet, in Bloomberg's case, they aren't doing so. So, again, how does voting for Bloomberg benefit the Republican party generally?...
Voting for Bloomberg puts Bloomberg in a position to raise money for his masters. Thus a vote for Bloomberg makes it possible for the GOP to operate another day.
I don't see why support for Bloomberg automatically translates into support for the Republican party generally. I just don't see it. I think that if you could convince me or them, your time would be well spent, wouldn't it?
posted by me & my monkey at 9:02 PM EST on September 30 [!]
If you work for a industrial factory that pollutes in your drinking water, you are facilitating your own poisoning.
posted by Rothko at 9:56 AM on October 1, 2005
And yet, in Bloomberg's case, they aren't doing so. So, again, how does voting for Bloomberg benefit the Republican party generally?...
Voting for Bloomberg puts Bloomberg in a position to raise money for his masters. Thus a vote for Bloomberg makes it possible for the GOP to operate another day.
I don't see why support for Bloomberg automatically translates into support for the Republican party generally. I just don't see it. I think that if you could convince me or them, your time would be well spent, wouldn't it?
posted by me & my monkey at 9:02 PM EST on September 30 [!]
If you work for a industrial factory that pollutes in your drinking water, you are facilitating your own poisoning.
posted by Rothko at 9:56 AM on October 1, 2005
Voting for Bloomberg puts Bloomberg in a position to raise money for his masters. Thus a vote for Bloomberg makes it possible for the GOP to operate another day.
Do you seriously mean that he couldn't raise money for "his masters" if he weren't mayor? Do you really think that being the mayor gives you that much leverage for fundraising that you wouldn't have otherwise? Do you really think that party affiliation should trump everything else for voters?
posted by me & my monkey at 11:00 AM on October 1, 2005
Do you seriously mean that he couldn't raise money for "his masters" if he weren't mayor? Do you really think that being the mayor gives you that much leverage for fundraising that you wouldn't have otherwise? Do you really think that party affiliation should trump everything else for voters?
posted by me & my monkey at 11:00 AM on October 1, 2005
Do you really think that party affiliation should trump everything else for voters?
Can't speak for anyone else, but as I've tried to argue, the current Republican Party is a special case. In this case, party affiliation just might justifiably trump everything else for voters, because the message that a Republican politician takes home when elected on a party ticket is that the voting public is still largely accepting of the modus operandi (with its emphasis on unquestioning party loyalty even to the exclusion of basic democratic principles) of the Republican political machine. Now I'll be the last to say the Democrats haven't been neck-deep in corruption themselves in the past, but that only makes the whole heap of shit stink more, not less.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 2:01 PM on October 1, 2005
Can't speak for anyone else, but as I've tried to argue, the current Republican Party is a special case. In this case, party affiliation just might justifiably trump everything else for voters, because the message that a Republican politician takes home when elected on a party ticket is that the voting public is still largely accepting of the modus operandi (with its emphasis on unquestioning party loyalty even to the exclusion of basic democratic principles) of the Republican political machine. Now I'll be the last to say the Democrats haven't been neck-deep in corruption themselves in the past, but that only makes the whole heap of shit stink more, not less.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 2:01 PM on October 1, 2005
Do you seriously mean that he couldn't raise money for "his masters" if he weren't mayor? Do you really think that being the mayor gives you that much leverage for fundraising that you wouldn't have otherwise? Do you really think that party affiliation should trump everything else for voters?
posted by me & my monkey at 2:00 PM EST on October 1 [!]
Yes, certainly not as much. Yes, being a public official gives you the leverage to set up, say, a GOP convention. No, I don't think it should, but I recognize that it does for some people.
posted by Rothko at 3:05 PM on October 1, 2005
posted by me & my monkey at 2:00 PM EST on October 1 [!]
Yes, certainly not as much. Yes, being a public official gives you the leverage to set up, say, a GOP convention. No, I don't think it should, but I recognize that it does for some people.
posted by Rothko at 3:05 PM on October 1, 2005
« Older A whole lotta google tips | How would this work with the pron? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by delmoi at 4:03 PM on September 29, 2005